Diagnostic accuracy of the Dysphagia Trained Nurse Assessment tool in acute stroke.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Comprehensive swallow screening assessments to identify dysphagia and make early eating and drinking recommendations can be used by trained nurses. This study aimed to validate the Dysphagia Trained Nurse Assessment (DTNAx) tool in acute stroke patients. METHODS: Participants with diagnosed stroke were prospectively and consecutively recruited from an acute stroke unit. Following a baseline DTNAx on admission, participants underwent a speech and language therapist (SLT) bedside assessment of swallowing (speech and language therapist assessment [SLTAx]), videofluoroscopy (VFS) and a further DTNAx by the same or a different nurse. RESULTS: Forty-seven participants were recruited, of whom 22 had dysphagia. Compared to SLTAx in the identification of dysphagia, DTNAx had a sensitivity of 96.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 83.8-99.9) and specificity of 89.5% (95% CI 75.2-97.1). Compared to VFS in the identification of aspiration, DTNAx had a sensitivity of 77.8% (95% CI 40.0-97.2) and a specificity of 81.6% (95% CI 65.7-92.3). Over 81% of the diet and fluid recommendations made by the dysphagia trained nurses were in absolute agreement compared to SLTAx. Both DTNAx and SLTAx had low diagnostic accuracy compared to the VFS-based definition of dysphagia. CONCLUSIONS: Nurses trained in DTNAx showed good diagnostic accuracy in identifying dysphagia compared to SLTAx and in identifying aspiration compared to VFS. They made appropriate diet and fluid recommendations in line with SLTs in the early management of dysphagia.

Psychometric assessment and validation of the dysphagia severity rating scale in stroke patients.

Post stroke dysphagia (PSD) is common and associated with poor outcome. The Dysphagia Severity Rating Scale (DSRS), which grades how severe dysphagia is based on fluid and diet modification and supervision requirements for feeding, is used for clinical research but has limited published validation information. Multiple approaches were taken to validate the DSRS, including concurrent- and predictive criterion validity, internal consistency, inter- and intra-rater reliability and sensitivity to change. This was done using data from four studies involving pharyngeal electrical stimulation in acute stroke patients with dysphagia, an individual patient data meta-analysis and unpublished studies (NCT03499574, NCT03700853). In addition, consensual- and content validity and the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) were assessed using anonymous surveys sent to UK-based Speech and Language Therapists (SLTs). Scores for consensual validity were mostly moderate (62.5-78%) to high or excellent (89-100%) for most scenarios. All but two assessments of content validity were excellent. In concurrent criterion validity assessments, DSRS was most closely associated with measures of radiological aspiration (penetration aspiration scale, Spearman rank rs = 0.49, p < 0.001) and swallowing (functional oral intake scale, FOIS, rs = -0.96, p < 0.001); weaker but statistically significant associations were seen with impairment, disability and dependency. A similar pattern of relationships was seen for predictive criterion validity. Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) was either "good" or "excellent". Intra and inter-rater reliability were largely "excellent" (intraclass correlation >0.90). DSRS was sensitive to positive change during recovery (medians: 7, 4 and 1 at baseline and 2 and 13 weeks respectively) and in response to an intervention, pharyngeal electrical stimulation, in a published meta-analysis. The MCID was 1.0 and DSRS and FOIS scores may be estimated from each other. The DSRS appears to be a valid tool for grading the severity of swallowing impairment in patients with post stroke dysphagia and is appropriate for use in clinical research and clinical service delivery.

Accuracy and clinical utility of comprehensive dysphagia screening assessments in acute stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Nurses and other nonspecialists in dysphagia are often trained to screen swallowing poststroke. There are many basic tools that test water only, they are usually conservative, and patients that fail the test remain nil by mouth until a speech and language therapy assessment. More comprehensive tests also allow nonspecialists to recommend modified oral intake. Little is known about the accuracy, clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of these tests. METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review was conducted to describe comprehensive swallowing tests that are available for use in acute stroke by nurses or other nonspecialists in dysphagia. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate accuracy and the clinical utility of the tests was considered. Searches and analyses, conducted by two reviewers, included MEDLINE, Embase, trial registries and grey literature up to December 2018. Validated studies were assessed for quality and risk of bias using QUADAS-2. RESULTS: Twenty studies were included, describing five different tests, three of which had undergone validation. The tests varied in content, recommendations and use. There was no test superior in accuracy and clinical utility. Three studies validating the Gugging Swallow Screen provided sufficient data for meta-analysis, demonstrating high sensitivity; 96% (95% CI 0.90-0.99), but low specificity, 65% (95% CI 0.47-0.79), in line with many water swallow tests. Results should be interpreted with caution as study quality and applicability to the acute stroke population was poor. CONCLUSIONS: There is no comprehensive nurse dysphagia assessment tool that has robustly demonstrated good accuracy, clinical utility and cost-effectiveness in acute stroke. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Nurses and other clinicians can develop competencies in screening swallowing and assessing for safe oral intake in those with poststroke dysphagia. It is important to use a validated assessment tool that demonstrates good accuracy, clinical utility and cost-effectiveness.